Pat Martin

[Patent Act, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas for a passionate speech and a speech that I know comes from the heart. As a veteran in this place, he has seen this debate come and go through many incarnations.

The member pointed out some things that took place before I came to the House of Commons. One is the unbelievable reversal in and around 1992 and 1993 when the Tory government brought in Bill C-91. I remember it well. There was outrage, a hue and cry, and activists were taking to the streets over Bill C-91. The Liberal Party, at that time in opposition and running for government, condemned Bill C-91. It actively hammered away at the ideas that Bill C-91 would jack up and spiral and escalate drug prices. The Liberals said it would limit the ability of generic drug companies to put necessary drugs into the hands of Canadians at less cost.

I even remember when the member of parliament for Winnipeg North Centre at that time, David Walker, the candidate I ran against, toured a task force on Bill C-91 right around the country. In fact, on the behalf of some people there was great hope and optimism when the Liberal government took power that this task force would come back with some relief, some hope, some optimism, and that we would be able to get out from under this millstone of this lengthy patent protection.

However, the results of that touring task force, chaired by the member for Winnipeg North Centre at the time, were that the members came back and said there was nothing we could do, that we had traded away our ability to have a domestic pharmaceutical policy and even our ability to look after the interests of Canadians before the interests of multinational drug companies.

Frankly I would like to hear more recollections from the member for Burnaby—Douglas in regard to exactly what transpired in that period of time. I would like the member for Burnaby—Douglas to explain what he thinks the Liberals' thought process was to enable them to do such a dramatic flip-flop.

[Government Loans, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we all went to bat to try to get a buyer for this plant. I wrote letters personally on behalf of it and so did Lloyd Axworthy to get that loan through. We did not know they would write such a sloppy loan that this company could leave the country with our money.

Worse than that, it was revealed yesterday that John Buhler moved all the assets out of the company into a holding company and now has a secured loan against all the assets. Even if the company goes bankrupt or leaves the country, we cannot go after the assets of the company.

Again, what will the minister do? Will he unleash all the legal resources in his department to get—

[Government Loans, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, less than one year after we gave Buhler Versatile Inc. a $32 million unsecured interest free loan to build farm tractors in Winnipeg, it now says it is moving the plant to Fargo, North Dakota, and there is nothing in the loan contract to stop it.

Even worse, it is now revealed that the purchase price of the plant was only $28.5 million. We gave them $32 million, 115% of the total value.

John Buhler is breaking his side of the bargain to build tractors in this country. I want to know what the Minister of Industry will do to cancel this loan agreement and to recoup every penny of taxpayer money from this bogus loan?

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, May 2nd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to come back to some of the things that are not in the bill, which were itemized in the original speech by the member for Windsor—St. Clair. He had quite a list of things that he thought would have to go into the bill through amendment and I hope the government will be amenable to those changes.

He mentioned that the bill is completely silent on the issue of deep water bottom trawling. This is a practice that is heavily criticized by environmentalists wherever it occurs. Surely in a marine park or in a marine preserve, we are going to have to take active steps with strong language in this bill to preclude that from ever happening. The same goes with dredging.

Could the hon. member perhaps outline what sort of amendment he would contemplate to ensure that neither of these practices are tolerated in a marine park?

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, May 2nd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Windsor—St. Clair for a very enjoyable speech. I certainly learned a lot, as I am sure all of us did, about what is good and bad in the bill.

It was interesting and kind of shocking to learn more about what is not in the bill than what is in it. The hon. member itemized some things he thought were glaringly absent. One was the bill's complete silence on aquaculture, a booming new industry which is regulated but is nonetheless a source of apprehension.

I wonder if the hon. member would expand a little on the growing industry of aquaculture and how it could affect the ecological integrity of marine parks.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister coming before the House today to explain the government's latest initiative to improve relations with first nations people specifically as it pertains to governance.

I think I speak for most Canadians when I say we were heartened and encouraged that the Speech from the Throne made reference to issues facing aboriginal people. In doing so it signalled a growing recognition that the current relationship between the government and first nations people is not sustainable. It must be revisited, reworked and renewed, and hopefully without delay.

The Indian Act can best be described as 130 years of social tragedy. Canada's treatment of aboriginal people is its greatest shame. Actions to date in dealing with aboriginal people have had the effect, either by action or omission, of creating a permanent underclass in our society. No government to date has had the courage or the conviction to take pro-active steps to aggressively reverse this monumental injustice.

At the beginning of a new century there is cautious optimism that we are within reach of a breakthrough in our relationship with aboriginal people. In that sense we are living in historic times.

One of my proudest moments as a member of parliament was having the opportunity to rise in support of the historic Nisga'a treaty. Well-meaning people throughout Canada celebrated with the Nisga'a as they took the courageous steps necessary to realize their inherent right to self-governance. In the House of Commons only the Canadian Alliance voted against the Nisga'a right to self-governance.

Now is the time to begin putting in place the necessary legislative framework to enable all first nations communities to exercise their right to self-determination and to achieve the dignity, pride and self-worth that results when oppressed people fight for and achieve that basic freedom.

I agree with the minister that the current Indian Act is outdated and obsolete. It was created for a different era, an era that never contemplated there would come a time when aboriginal people would fight for and win recognition of their inherent right to self-governance.

It is with cautious optimism that we receive the minister's information today. We recognize the need for careful and meaningful consultation prior to such a fundamental departure from the status quo. We accept that there is a need to build consensus. We appreciate what seems to be a sincere effort to consult far and wide by whatever technology is available.

However, we caution the minister that bold reforms often breed apprehension and mistrust.

Some aboriginal leaders have already indicated that they will boycott the process. Some say there might be a hidden agenda. Others express frustration that they have been consulted to death. Many point out that the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was the most comprehensive and exhaustive consultation in recent history. Yet six years later its five volumes sit on shelves. They say the progress report “Gathering Strength” should have been named gathering dust because that has been the sum total of its experience.

The aboriginal leadership does not agree on everything but it is unanimous in one regard. It is united in calling for the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Over the course of five years and $50 million positions were developed, presented, recorded and drafted into meaningful recommendations. However, rather than implement the recommendations, we are about to embark on yet another round of comprehensive consultations.

The government wants the initiative to be seen as an interim step toward self-government. It hopes it will ultimately provide first nations some authority and control over their day to day administration. It also hopes broad consultations will lead to a sharing of practices and that communities with strong administrative skills are encouraged to provide guidance and leadership to those with weaker skills.

Built into this aspect of the initiative is the recognition that most first nations communities already manage their affairs in a professional manner. It is hoped that they will share their experience with other communities and ultimately develop national standards of excellence.

I agree with the minister that all too often the official opposition has focused on the failures of a few rather than the successes of the vast majority. The Canadian Alliance Party has been intellectually dishonest in pointing to isolated incidents of financial mismanagement and arguing that all aboriginal leadership is corrupt or incompetent. I resent that position. Its continual attacks are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to undermine aboriginal self-governance which it clearly opposes vigorously.

I am encouraged to hear the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development say it is his intention to strip away his power over the day to day governance of first nations and put it back where it belongs: in the hands of first nations. I view that as an interim step toward self-government.

If the minister's announcement moves us one step closer to self-governance and self-determination for aboriginal people then he can count on the support of the NDP caucus.

[International Workers Day, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, May 1 is the international day to recognize workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively.

On May 1, 1886, workers were gunned down in the Haymarket riots in Chicago while striking for the eight hour day. By 1889, the International Socialist Congress of Paris had designated May 1 as an eight hour holiday out of respect for its fallen comrades in Chicago. The tradition continues today.

Yet in many countries, including many of Canada's trading partners, basic workers' rights are just a dream. In Colombia, 3,000 trade union leaders have been murdered since 1987. Many other developing nations deny the most basic workers' rights, using violence, abuse and harassment.

On this May Day the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions calls upon the world for global support for basic, fundamental labour standards.

For those workers around the world who are still struggling for basic rights, I wish to remind them of the slogan of the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike: “The great only appear great when we are on our knees. Let us rise”.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud today that the leader of our party has chosen this topic to use for our opposition day. At least this party is standing up for the rights of Canadians as we seek to defend our interests in the face of these global trade agreements.

She made reference to some of the brokers that are negotiating these deals and their attitude about the preservation of public services. Would she comment on the opinions of one such key figure, the former head of the WTO, when he said that there was a surplus of democracy in the world today that was interfering with the free movement of investment and capital?

Would she comment on what kind of a mindset could lead someone to say that kind of thing in an era where we value democracy above all else? In an era where our parents went to war to fight for democracy there are actually people out there negotiating deals on our behalf who believe there is a surplus of democracy.

[Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act, April 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be able to join the debate on Bill C-3. I am probably one of those people who the member for Prince Albert was talking about. I firmly believe the federal government has not just a role but an obligation to try to ensure that Canadians have good access to affordable energy, especially in our harsh winter climate. Energy is not a luxury commodity it is a necessary commodity.

Something that is our birthright, something that is our common wealth, something that is part of our Canadian heritage should be accessible to Canadians at a preferential price than we sell it offshore. I am proud to say that on behalf of Canadians.

Many Canadians, especially people in my riding, have phoned me and asked for help, for some relief, for the federal government to stop being so impotent when it comes to giving them access to affordable energy. They are asking why it cannot be that way. They sent us here to represent their interests. This winter their interests or needs were better access to affordable energy because they thought they were being gouged, ripped off and cheated by big oil.

There was a time when Canadians collectively decided to try to take steps to represent their interests when it came to energy. That is when people with more vision apparently than those who occupy the House today came up with the idea that perhaps we should not have our entire energy industry foreign owned and foreign controlled because we do not know when we are being gouged or overcharged.

They did not say, as the hon. member for Prince Albert was trying to imply, that we should nationalize the whole industry. They did not come on that strong. They said we should have one oil company, a watchdog, a window on the industry. We would be part of the industry and we would have one company owned by the people of Canada, not owned by the Liberal government.

What is wrong with that idea? What is it about that idea that so frightens small minded people? The hon. member also tried to imply that crown corporations are owned by the party in power. I get tired about hearing about it.

It is very fitting, timely and appropriate that we are having this debate today because I think energy is a top of mind issue for most Canadians. Certainly judging from the calls I have received in recent months, frankly this past winter, Canadians are very concerned about a constant and reliable supply of clean, affordable energy.

I am mostly concerned about the homeowners who live in my riding. They are my primary concern, but small businesses, schools, hospitals, institutions and non-profit organizations are reeling with shock and horror at what is happening to their operating costs, for seemingly no rhyme or reason. Seemingly arbitrary skyrocketing prices in energy are what infuriates Canadians the most. That is why recently people such as me in my private member's bill have been advocating some kind of government intervention, some kind of regulation, no matter what form it takes.

If it bothers the hon. member for Prince Albert so much, we will not call it a national energy program. That seems to irritate him. It seems to set him off. We do not want to provoke him and make him any more hostile than he already is, so we will call it something else. Let us call it an energy price commission. There is a good moderate sort of phrase. It would not have broad sweeping powers to nationalize every oil industry.

All we are saying is we want some stability and some regulations. If we had an arm's length energy price commission, the oil companies would have to come, whether producers or retailers, to that commission and justify why they deserve a rate increase, a hike.

We would not let it happen every long week. Perhaps twice a year or perhaps every six months, they could come before that panel and argue the merits of their case as to why they deserve an energy price increase and then that would be it. If it were justifiable, the people of Canada would know the rationale and they would not feel so gouged, cheated and ripped off as they do today.

The hon. member who spoke previously can call that whatever he wants. I call it a good idea. I call it advocating on behalf of Canadians. It is not just the NDP that seems to think that way. The Government of Newfoundland introduced such a thing a short two months ago. We have been talking about it all winter. I am sure it was not our initiative that gave it the idea. It actually learned it from the Government of Prince Edward Island because it had been doing that for 40 years.

The Government of Prince Edward Island had the common sense to represent the interests of its own people and put the interests of its citizens before the interests of big oil. It could stand up on its hind legs and stand up to big oil. Now Newfoundland has followed. Perhaps now it does not sound like such a crazy idea to the small minded people who are afraid of that concept. Canadians would be proud of us if they could hear a debate in the House in which we represent their interests and not the interests of big oil.

We have heard a lot about energy pricing today. I should like to raise another element. The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge talked about the real costs of margins from the producer to the refiner. I should like to talk about the whole cost of energy.

We have to start viewing energy pricing. We have to look at the whole cost of burning fossil fuels. When we look at the whole cost of oil as a fossil fuel it is amazing. It is not the $12 a barrel that it costs to produce a barrel of oil in the tar sands. It is not the $28 a barrel that we are charged by OPEC. It is more like $150 a barrel when the cost of the American military to keep the gulf shipping lanes open is factored in. When the environmental degradation that takes place every time we burn a litre of fossil fuels is factored in, that is the whole cost.

When it is viewed that way all other sources of alternative energy such as solar power or wind power seem like a bargain by comparison. Demand side management becomes the logical choice. Instead of trying to find ways to get cheaper access to fossil fuels and soiling our own nests to the point where we cannot live on the planet for very much longer if we carry on, we should be looking at ways to enjoy the same quality of life or even an improved quality of life using less and less energy.

Canada should be a centre of excellence in demand side management. Obviously we have needs that most countries do not have in terms of a harsh winter climate. We should be experts in the field of doing more with less. I certainly advocate that as being the direction we should go.

To meet the actual immediate needs of Canadians I believe there is a role for government to play in intervening to represent the interests of Canadian citizens before the interests of oil companies. The idea of a national energy program should not be frightening. It should not be met with such fear and trepidation. It is not a two headed monster. It is looking after people's interests.

The only real thing that we have seen the government try to do to recognize the plight of Canadians this last winter was the gas rebate, the home heating rebate program. I received a phone call from a person in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. I do not know how he got my number. It is not in my riding, but the argument was the rebate system was flawed and that we should think about what it does to northerners. Northerners make higher salaries because of the increased cost of living. Nobody in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, got the $125 because none of them were at the low income cutoff line that we see in most cities.

Even though they have $500 and $600 per month home heating bills in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, nobody was getting the rebate. The rebate of $125 would heat their houses for one week but they did not get a penny. It was getting so bad that the home heating retailer would not give credit any more. People had to show up with cash on the barrelhead to purchase a barrel of home heating oil because he was concerned that they simply would not be paying those bills because they did not have the money. That is the kind of crisis we are facing when we do not intervene on people's behalf.

We have heard a great deal about energy supply and energy strategies. Now we are starting to hear about a continental energy strategy, that George Bush has a vision of being able to tap into the resources of the whole hemisphere. We heard recently he now plans to open up the natural gas fields in Alaska, causing the need for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline or a pipeline like it to run down through Yukon or through Alaska into the southern states.

I can see why he is interested. There is 33 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in that one natural gas field. It seems like an astronomical number until we consider that every year the United States uses 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. He is going to open up the north and arguably, although I think the argument is pretty good, it will do serious environmental damage to Canada with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline that has been studied to death. There is no way to build this pipeline without serious interference with the flora and fauna of the Yukon territory so that the United States can have natural gas for one and a half years. He will do all that damage for one and a half years of natural gas.

This is staggering to me. It is probably the best and most graphic illustration I can find to make the point that we cannot continue to do what we are doing. The jig is up in terms of energy consumption in North America.

David Suzuki had a good statistic recently. He said that for everyone in all the developing nations to live with the same level of energy use as we live with in Canada today, we would need six more planets. There are not enough resources on this planet for everyone in China to have 2.2 vehicles in the garage, an outboard motor and all other things we use energy for. There simply is not enough. There simply would not be enough air to breathe if we were fuelling that many vehicles.

We need to take a sensible approach to an energy strategy. I would argue that our energy price commission would comment on alternative forms of energy. This would not only help set the price of energy and the length of time at which those prices would be fixed, but it would also promote alternative sources of energy. It would promote Canada as a centre of excellence for alternative energy sources so that we could develop the technology and export it. This would benefit the planet instead of just flooding the world with more and more natural gas and oil.

If we used an interventionist hand or at least took a regulating role, the Government of Canada could not only benefit Canadians by better access to affordable energy but also benefit the world in terms of showing some vision and some recognition that what we are doing is wrong and sooner or later we need to wean ourself off fossil fuels.

In terms of being a fiercely proud Canadian nationalist, Bill C-3 seems like the death rattle of a national dream. I hearken back to a time when people in the Chamber had enough sense, foresight and political courage to take active steps to represent the interests of Canadian citizens before the interests of oil companies. That manifested itself in a national energy program, part of the strategy which had one oil company owned by the people of Canada so that we had a watchdog on the industry and a window into how the industry really operated.

That was a time of courage. That was an era when people had some vision and some political courage. That has been eroded and stripped away by the mania that everything must be deregulated, the free hand of the market must prevail and the government must not intervene whatsoever.

It has not served us well. It was the mantra of the Business Council on National Issues and groups acting out of self-interest and not the common good. We used to have people who were taking steps for the common good. What a concept.

I believe our precious natural resources are part of our common wealth. It is a term we also do not hear too often. Some of us feel strongly that the oil under our feet is part of the common wealth we all share as Canadian citizens. Our children should be proud of it and we should be able to feel secure about it.

One of the galling things is that we have now watched successive governments trade away our ability to intervene on behalf of Canadians when it comes to preferential pricing of energy products even though it is ours, is under our soil and we seem to have quite a bit of it. We have an abundance of natural gas.

I used to work on the oil rigs in Alberta. Every time we hit natural gas everybody would collectively curse under their breath because they did not want more gas. We would cap those wells off and move on to the next well. That is a fact. One cannot swing a cat in northern Alberta without hitting a capped off natural gas well. There is no shortage. There is a manufactured shortage if anything so prices can be jacked up.

Returning to my original point, there was a time in 1975 when men and women in this place with political courage, with vision and with a fierce national pride inspired whole generations.

I was a young man then and I was very proud of the fact that we were taking active steps to represent ourselves and make sure we did not lose whole industries to foreign ownership.

In fact, Liberals such as Walter Gordon and Paul Martin Sr. and people like them were against too much foreign ownership. They passed laws to regulate how much of our industry should be controlled by foreigners. Frankly we want the interests of Canadians to be put before the interests of others. That is only natural.

Why, then, would successive governments, the Tory government under Mulroney and now the Liberal government under the current leadership, trade away to our export market our ability to make sure Canadians have access to our precious energy resources at a preferential price? I call it economic treason when someone trades that away.

[Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act, April 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I think I understood the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge to mean that he believes there is a role for government to intervene in and regulate the energy marketplace that, frankly, is not serving Canadians very well at this point in time.

I realize the member is an authority on the subject. I have heard him speak about energy prices many times in the House of Commons. I firmly believe he is genuine in what he is saying, but I would ask him to clarify something for me.

Is it his feeling or point that government can and should set national energy policies for the well-being of Canadians or does he believe, like we heard from the Tories, that we should let the free hand of the marketplace prevail and it will find its own natural level?

That is what I would like to understand a little more clearly from the hon. member.